tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10374460.post2881592113365944711..comments2017-11-23T05:07:36.858-08:00Comments on The Carnival of Bad History: Carnival of Bad History #14: Backlog EditionJohn McKaynoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10374460.post-43122887417172084782007-08-16T07:08:00.000-07:002007-08-16T07:08:00.000-07:00Furr wrote:"In fact, there's no question that at l...Furr wrote:<BR/><BR/>"In fact, there's no question that at least one of the documents is forged. If one is forged, others could be too. <BR/><BR/>There is a good case to be made, and it has been made. But Romanov doesn't want to hear about it!"<BR/><BR/>I replied:<BR/><BR/>"I want to hear about it! But Furr wouldn't tell..."<BR/><BR/>Furr retorted:<BR/><BR/>"Mr R also knows that I have told him I'm going to publish an article on one of these documents, arguing that it is a forgery. <BR/><BR/>But instead of informing readers of this blog about this, he states a falsehood: "Furr wouldn't tell..."<BR/><BR/>Furr refused to tell me what his argument was - before the publication. Understandable. But he is still lying when he says that what I had written was a falsehood.<BR/><BR/>I do want to know Furr's alleged argument, and he doesn't tell (for an understandable reason; but he still doesn't). What could be simpler than this?<BR/><BR/>To sum up:<BR/><BR/>Furr's claim: Romanov doesn't want to know!<BR/><BR/>Fact: I do, I have never claimed otherwise, and Furr knows that I do want to know.<BR/><BR/>Furr's claim: Romanov lies when he says that Furr didn't tell him his argument!<BR/><BR/>Fact: Furr did not tell Romanov his argument, he only said that he (Furr) had an argument, but did not tell Romanov what it was.<BR/><BR/>Furr's claim: There are huge questions about authenticity of Katyn documents.<BR/><BR/>Fact: Furr's mere claim does not make it so.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10374460.post-33418040443351607802007-06-18T10:31:00.000-07:002007-06-18T10:31:00.000-07:00Mr Romanov states:"There is actually no question a...Mr Romanov states:<BR/><BR/>"There is actually no question about the authenticity of these documents..."<BR/><BR/>But he knows he is wrong. There are huge questions about their authenticity.<BR/><BR/>What Mr Romanov should have said is that HE is convinced they are genuine. <BR/><BR/>Mr R, the fact that YOU are convinced doesn't mean that questions do not exist!<BR/><BR/>Mr R also knows that I have told him I'm going to publish an article on one of these documents, arguing that it is a forgery. <BR/><BR/>But instead of informing readers of this blog about this, he states a falsehood: "Furr wouldn't tell..." <BR/><BR/>These are "weasel words" -- literally true, but intended to deceive. <BR/><BR/>Few researchers will give away their research before it's published. Why should I?<BR/><BR/>And why should I give it to Romanov, of all people? I asked him not to publish our private email exchange, and he did it anyway!<BR/><BR/>You just can't believe Mr R. He is not objective.<BR/><BR/>Objectivity is essential in studying any historical question. It is especially important when studying hot, controversial topics that you yourself have very strong feelings about -- as Mr R has about Katyn. <BR/><BR/>But Mr R makes no attempt at objectivity. He'd rather call names. <BR/><BR/>His abusive rhetoric and use of terms like "moonbat" show he either is a neocon, or chooses to imitate them. This is a group of people without any interest at all in the truth!<BR/><BR/>Bad company, Mr R. Past time to change your style of discussion.<BR/><BR/>Also, past time to be HONEST in your discussions and replies! <BR/><BR/>As it is, you make IUri Mukhin, the main scholar who argues the case that the "Katyn packet" of documents are forged, look very good, in comparison. <BR/><BR/>Too bad! There's plenty of room for a good, DISPASSIONATE, examination of Mukhin's arguments. Too bad, that is, that your lack of objectivity, your passion for invective and insult, utterly disqualifies you.<BR/><BR/>It's never too late to change, and I hope you do. But change begins by recognizing that you have been WRONG.<BR/><BR/>Are you capable of this? We shall see.Grover Furrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15782160573222646013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10374460.post-46810979304478162352007-06-18T09:28:00.000-07:002007-06-18T09:28:00.000-07:00Furr claims above that I assaulted him for "daring...Furr claims above that I assaulted him for "daring to question". This, of course, is not true: as anyone who has read our exchange knows, I attacked him for his absurdly incorrect claims made with a perfectly straight face.<BR/><BR/>There is actually no question about the authenticity of these documents, and I know this because I have examined deniers' arguments, one by one. Furr doesn't cite any evidence that "at least one of the documents is forged". I want to hear about it! But Furr wouldn't tell...Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10374460.post-64841630380662903992007-05-28T09:33:00.000-07:002007-05-28T09:33:00.000-07:00The issue at stake in Sergei Romanov's criticism o...The issue at stake in Sergei Romanov's criticism of me is not whether I am a "pro-Stalinist", any more than it is Romanov's "pro-Gorbachev / Eltsin" views. <BR/><BR/>Rather, it's a question of <I>evidence</I>: what it is, how to evaluate it, how to draw the best conclusions from it.<BR/><BR/>Romanov assaulted me for daring to question the "consensus" about the Katyn massacre. To question it! period.<BR/><BR/>Not that I <I>deny</I> the Soviets killed all those Polish officers -- I don't. But I also do not <I>affirm</I> the Gorbachev-Eltsin version, because there are serious problems in accepting the "smoking gun" documents as genuine.<BR/><BR/>Romanov doesn't want to hear that there are serious problems with these documents. <BR/><BR/>In fact, there's no question that at least one of the documents is forged. If one is forged, others could be too. <BR/><BR/>There is a good case to be made, and it has been made. But Romanov doesn't want to hear about it! <BR/><BR/>The point is this: everybody has biases and preconceived ideas. But, if you want to discover the truth, you have to set them aside, or otherwise allow for your own biases, so that they do not blind you to the evidence that tends to put your biases into question.<BR/><BR/>In my view, Romanov is unable to do that. And that's the problem!<BR/><BR/>Gorbachev and Eltsin -- I'm more familiar with historical work done during Gorbachev's time -- presided over major historical falsifications. Plus they are politicians. There is just no reason to "believe" them.<BR/><BR/>But "question the faith, and you are a heretic". Romanov is in the business of excommunicating heretics.<BR/><BR/>Too bad! We'll never get to the truth that way!Grover Furrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15782160573222646013noreply@blogger.com